Intolerant of eHarmony

NJNP Photo/ Ed CurryTwo gay teens walk hand in hand down the hall of a dorm at Rutgers University in New Brunswick. Gay and lesbian singles have a new website to look for partners, thanks to a lawsuit.

The homosexual community now has its gay dating web site, paid for by a Christian businessman.

And an honorable man of biblical beliefs has been bludgeoned into submission by the scam of "tolerance" and "non-discrimination" and the judicial tyranny of a New Jersey state agency.

In November, eHarmony.com, a Christian-based matchmaking service, was strong-armed by the state Civil Rights Division and agreed to set up (or see here) a parallel web site for gays.

The agreement was made after the state agency acted following a lawsuit filed by a gay man, who said he felt discriminated against.

Complying with that settlement, eHarmony earlier this week established Compatible Partners. And today, four months after this misuse of state power began, this whole sorry mess is still outrageous.

To further sharpen the sting, the state agency ruled that Eric McKinley, who filed the suit, will receive $5,000 and free membership in the gay dating service for a year. eHarmony must also pay the state Attorney General's Office $50,000 for its troubles.

And, the first 10,000 people who register for the gay dating service will receive the first six months membership for free.

What does this sorry episode tell us?

In my view, this gay demand for "tolerance" and "non-discrimination" is being employed dishonestly in an attempt to destroy all principled opposition to the homosexual lifestyle.

As McKinley, 46, a New Jersey resident, prevailed in his legal action, he stated that he had been unhappy because the site had no option for men seeking men.

"It's very frustrating and it's very humiliating to think that other people can do it and I can't," McKinley said. "And the only reason I can't is because I'm a gay man. That's very hurtful."

Reporters dutifully wrote down his comment, but the statement is laughable. Are there really no gay dating web sites that he can participate in?

Suppose, for example, that I wanted to go to a local mosque, only that I insisted that they sing evangelical Christian songs during the service?

Or that I go to Burger King, and I insist that they serve Big Macs?

No, tolerance is letting the other fellow do his thing, in his place, and you do your thing, in yours.

Because Americans are generous and open-minded people, "tolerance" and "non-discrimination" are powerful words. But they are misused when they are used to force someone to go against his deeply-held religious beliefs, in a private business. (see here)

And it is a travesty when homosexuals use those powerful words to try to silence dissent, to destroy those who do not agree with their lifestyle. And it is an injustice when, as in this case, someone uses the power of government to force another to support economically something they are morally opposed to.

The irony, of course, is that homosexuals claim to want freedom, the freedom to practice sexual behavior that most religions teach is immoral. (In fact, of course, they have that freedom.)

And while the owner of the Pasadena, California, based web site has not spoken against gay dating, his site - which helps Christians find happiness in traditional marriage - is a testimony of sorts to traditional values.

The problem, in this larger sense, is that biblical believers just won't shut up. Biblical believers continue to insist that homosexual behavior is wrong.

So what's a homosexual to do? He wants to practice what he wants to practice. But he's not satisfied with that. He also wants that segment of society which thinks what he's doing is wrong to somehow agree that, well, maybe it's not really wrong.

But biblical believers won't go along with the program, so to speak. And so, men who identify themselves as gay, as McKinley does, go to the courts, and state agencies, to compel biblical believers to give sanction to homosexual behavior.

In this case, the "approval" is not a matter of words, because there is no record of the founder of eHarmony making any official statement about the founding of the new site.

And we certainly cast no aspersions on him, because we cannot imagine the legal and financial pressures he must have been under before agreeing to this deal.

But McKinley, and his "allies" in state government, have "spoken" with a bigger stick: money. And by compelling him to establish a business antithetical to his beliefs, an enforced "approval."

"Having to provide gay matches is outside the scope of their mission and purpose," said a friend of mine, who met his wife on eHarmony. "The company should not be punished for being Christian."

"It angers me that a company can be forced into compromising their own standards and principles," added his wife.

In my view, when a state agency complies with the unreasonable demands of a radical agenda, and uses the power of government to enforce those demands, that state agency has misused its power.